In re Ronald Y.

Filed 5/17/06 In re Ronald Y. CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

Ronald Y., Sr., appeals a juvenile court's interim review order denying him visitation with his three children who are dependents of the court. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b).) Appellant did not attend the review hearing because he was in jail, but he was represented by counsel at the hearing. Appellant contends that he had both statutory and constitutional due process rights to be present at the hearing, which were denied. Appellant also contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion in terminating child visitation. We reject the contentions and affirm the order.

facts

This family of five children, of which appellant fathered three, has suffered chronic instability and neglect. There were ten prior referrals to county agencies for child neglect and abuse; spousal abuse; parental substance abuse; and criminal conduct before the current action was instituted. The petitions in this case were filed in February 2005, and alleged that the custodial parent, mother Dalena M., abandoned her oldest child, Ronald Y., Jr., at a group home when she neglected to pick him up upon his discharge from the group home program. The San Mateo County Human Services Agency (Agency) alleged that the mother has a history of drug and alcohol abuse; has been physically abused by different men, including appellant; and was without any means of financial support. The mother had been terminated from governmental assistance because she failed to comply with program requirements, and she and the children were at risk of being evicted from their residential motel. Appellant was separated (or possibly divorced) from the children's mother and lived apart from the family in Sacramento.

Appellant has a criminal history dating back to 1984, with 13 felony convictions. Among other crimes, he has been arrested for drug offenses, firearm offenses, and domestic violence. In 2004, appellant was reportedly arrested after he barricaded himself in a house and held his children hostage. Appellant had a gun in the house, and the police had to negotiate for the children's release.

Upon filing the current petitions for juvenile dependency in February 2005, the Agency attempted to locate and to notify appellant of the proceedings. The children's mother said she believed appellant lived in Sacramento. The petitions listed a street address for appellant in Sacramento but the accuracy of the address was apparently uncertain as the Agency also instituted a parental search. In fact, appellant was in Sacramento County jail, following his arrest in November 2004. The Agency first located appellant on April 19, 2005.

The jurisdictional hearing was held on April 26, 2005, without appellant present. The juvenile court sustained the petitions and declared the children to be dependents of the court upon finding that the children's mother had failed to protect them. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b).) The disposition hearing was held on May 12, 2005. Appellant was not present for the hearing, but he was represented by counsel. Appellant remained in jail on a parole hold, and faced new criminal charges for burglary, receiving stolen property, presenting false identification to a peace officer, and inflicting corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant. Appellant told the Agency that he wanted a relationship with the children. At the disposition hearing, the court continued the children as dependents and ordered supervised visitation with appellant. The court also directed the Agency to prepare an order for appellant's transportation from the Sacramento County jail to the San Mateo County juvenile court for an August 2005 review hearing. The transportation order was prepared and issued.

Despite the transportation order, appellant was not present at the August 8, 2005 interim review hearing. It is not clear from the record whether Sacramento County failed to honor the order, or if some other circumstance accounts for appellant's absence. Appellant's counsel was present at the hearing, and did not object to appellant's absence. The Agency reported that Ronald, Jr., the oldest child at 16 years old, was a run-away but the other two children were safely placed with a maternal aunt. The children's mother had been arrested for drug possession, among other charges, and was in jail awaiting trial in July 2005. The Agency reported that appellant had no projected release date. The Agency further stated: â€